State v. Dearmas’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “we are faced with statutory provisions that are in pari materia, we construe them in a manner that attempts to harmonize them and that is consistent with their general objective scope.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Horn v. Southern Union Co. · State v. Javier Merida

2. ““To support its Rule 41 argument, the state cites to decisions from other jurisdictions that interpret their analogue to Rule 41 as permitting a court to issue a search warrant to seize a blood sample. E.g., United States v. Allen, 337 F. Supp. 1041, 1043 (E.D. Pa. 1972) (noting, in the context of Rule 41, that ‘blood, hair and other bodily components are objects to be seized only through the warrant process’); State v. Taylor, 438 A.2d 1279, 1281 (Me. 1982) (holding that blood was tangible property subject to the provisions of Rule 41). In addition, the state cites to decisions from other jurisdictions opining that blood qualifies as a ‘tangible object.’ See People v. Epps, 182 Cal. App. 3d 1102 , 227 Cal. Rptr. 625, 628 (1986); Cox v. State, 473 So. 2d 778, 780 (Fla. Dist. App. 1985); People v. King, 232 A.D.2d 111 , 663 N.Y.S.2d 610, 614 (1997).” 841 A.2d at 666 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 45 Kan. App. 2d 1090 - State v. Powell